DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks filed on 6/22/26. Claims 6-10 have been canceled. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe USPA_20040241477_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 3, Watanabe discloses a sealant film (Claim 6) for food packaging (paragraph 0002) comprising a high-density PE layer (B) (corresponds to claimed seal layer) having a density ranging from 0.950 to 0.970 g/cm3 (Claim 1). Watanabe further discloses a resin composition layer (A) that comprises (a) 30 to 60 mass% of a linear low-density PE produced by metallocene catalyst (Claim 1) having a density ranging as high as 0.935 g/cm3 (paragraph 0030), (b) 10 to 30 wt% of a low-density PE (Claim 1) having a density of as high as 0.925 g/cm3 (paragraph 0032), and finally (c) 10 to 40 mass% of a resin (Claim 1) having a density of 0.917 g/cm3 (paragraph 0105). If and when said (a) is at 60 wt%, said (b) is at 30 wt%, and said (c) is at 10 wt%, with all three having their max limit of density, then the overall film density will result in:
[1]/[(0.60/0.935) + (0.3/0.925) + (0.1/0.917)] = 0.930 g/cm3. Although this value does not meet the claimed range for said core layer, it does come very close. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, Watanabe discloses another layer (C) that can have the same linear low-density PE (Claim 4 and paragraph 0027) which can have a density of 0.935 g/cm3 and be made from a metallocene catalyst (paragraph 0030).
Although the aforementioned is not taught in a single embodiment, the embodiments, of Watanabe, as a whole, to direct one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to the limitations of instant Claim 1 as shown above.
2. Regarding Claim 2, the MFR of said layer (C) (corresponds to claimed laminate layer) and layer (A) (corresponds to claimed core layer) can fall into the claimed range (paragraph 0031-0036).
3. Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe discloses using a substrate (corresponds to claimed base film) (paragraph 0006).
4. Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe discloses using a container (paragraph 0069).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/22/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Pey have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Watanabe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights